3 ms·

And don't forget "global warming is inevitable now, so there's nothing we can do". In my experience a good Fox News segment can use all three of these, at the

And don't forget "global warming is inevitable now, so there's nothing we can do". In my experience a good Fox News segment can use all three of these, at the same time, and switch back and forth among them, with no cognitive dissonance apparent. I don't think any of them are really being phased out, it's just that if any particular one is defeated in conversation, the arguer switches to one of the other arguments. EDIT: Indeed, there are several HN comments in this thread to that effect.

mikeash 11y ago
It has been that way for a very long time now. The right-wing angle on the debate has always included: - It's not happening. - It's happening but it's natural. - It's happening and might be man-made, but it's beneficial. - It's happening and might be man-made, and it's harmful, but it's not worth the cost to mitigate. - It's happening and might be man-made, and it's harmful, and free-market solutions will solve it. And yes, it often freely switches between them depending on the context.
- logfromblammo 11y ago
  There are four dimensions there: happening/not, natural/anthropogenic, beneficial/harmful, and the relative economic impact of intentional terraforming efforts. Of those four, only the last two are worth debating, and they're really almost the same thing. Everyone who screams about those first two dimensions are probably profiting more by perpetuating a meaningless conversation than by solving an identifiable problem. Sounds like a lot of political issues, actually. Some people can make a curiously prosperous living just out of getting other people to shout at each other.
  - mikeash 11y ago
    They all tie together, though. Yes, ultimately you just want to know what will happen if things go on as they are, and how that will change if we change our activity. But the first two strongly feed into the last two. If climate change is not anthropogenic, then cutting emissions will not provide any benefit, while potentially causing economic harm. If climate change isn't happening at all then there is no need to do anything, and the entire framework for predicting the outcomes of changes to human activities is completely busted.

mikeash 11y ago

It has been that way for a very long time now. The right-wing angle on the debate has always included: - It's not happening. - It's happening but it's natural. - It's happening and might be man-made, but it's beneficial. - It's happening and might be man-made, and it's harmful, but it's not worth the cost to mitigate. - It's happening and might be man-made, and it's harmful, and free-market solutions will solve it. And yes, it often freely switches between them depending on the context.

logfromblammo 11y ago
There are four dimensions there: happening/not, natural/anthropogenic, beneficial/harmful, and the relative economic impact of intentional terraforming efforts. Of those four, only the last two are worth debating, and they're really almost the same thing. Everyone who screams about those first two dimensions are probably profiting more by perpetuating a meaningless conversation than by solving an identifiable problem. Sounds like a lot of political issues, actually. Some people can make a curiously prosperous living just out of getting other people to shout at each other.
- mikeash 11y ago
  They all tie together, though. Yes, ultimately you just want to know what will happen if things go on as they are, and how that will change if we change our activity. But the first two strongly feed into the last two. If climate change is not anthropogenic, then cutting emissions will not provide any benefit, while potentially causing economic harm. If climate change isn't happening at all then there is no need to do anything, and the entire framework for predicting the outcomes of changes to human activities is completely busted.